Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00129)

We are not scholars here, we are theosophists. But if you want one 
scholar, Max Müller is the one.

Theosophy is very much a Doctrine. A holy, sacred and ancient one. 

And one has to choose. Do I believe in the Masters and Their 
Messenger, or do I believe in Leadbeater & Co. One can't have them 
both, hence they don't teach the same doctrine. I have chosen, I 
believe and have faith in the Masters and Their Messenger H.P. 
Blavatsky and I believe in Theosophy, and therefore I say NOT to Mr. 
Leadbeater and all forms of pseudo theosophy. 

To al leadbeaterians I say. Go and found your own movement, outside 
the Theosophical Movement. For way are you still operation inside 
the Theosophical Movement, if you don't like what we are saying, 
doing, thinking, believe, and you don't like what the Masters 
was/are saying? If you don't like to study Theosophy, go some where 
else! Thank you!

Carl

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
<kay_ziatz@...> wrote:
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Ek" wrote:
> 
> > If you are talking about the real letter from the Maha-Chohan,
> > you are right. But the fact is that Oliviera very much likes
> > the phoney ones, and has quoted them several times.
> 
> Then please show me where Oliveira quoted the forged letter of 
> Maha-chohan.
> 
> > but the origin of the word is Tibetan, and hence both M. and 
K.H. 
> > was/are Indian Hindus, it is nothing strange about the fact
> > that they was/are using it.
> 
> The point is that scholars doubt its tibetan origin and may 
conclude  
> on that basis that nor Blavatsky neither her Masters, if they 
existed, 
> never were in Tibet.
> So I think it's not safe to affirm that this word is tibetan.
> 
> 
> > I have one question to you, Konstantin. How, on earth, could
> > you believed that my comments was about Pedro's "god-article"?
> 
> I was misled by a link posted by someone afterwards. Your article 
> didn't contain the link to the original article criticized, and 
I've 
> thought that it was supplied later. And Pedro's "God-article"
> also contained quotes from Maha-chohan. I've read it a day later 
after 
> your article and didn'r remember the title.
> 
> As for sectarianism, I meant under it that only one version of 
> theosophy was called genuine while all others were branded as 
pseudo.
> 
> But theosophy cannot be a doctrine, be it from HPB or someone 
else. 
> It's the divine wisdom and truth in absolute sense but in a human 
> sense  it's not a doctrine but rather an approach which is 
> incompatible with blind belief in any doctrines.
> To believe that theosophy from mr. Smith is true while theosophy 
from 
> mr. Jones is false is not much better than to believe that 
> Christianity from the Russian Orthodox church is true and from 
Roman 
> Catholic church is false.
>